Earth’s Energy Budget Math Error
This discussion will only examine the work of government Climate Scientists as per the Earth Energy Budget diagram from NASA (below) and does not address whether or not the ideas presented by NASA or other mainstream climate researchers are valid or not.
Of course, this may appear to lend favor to those government ‘climate scientists’, but we need to examine their arguments to understand their thinking and discern whether they are either incompetent or willfully corrupt.
After years of this diagram existing it must have gone through many peer reviews. It would have been seen and any and all valid concerns by scientists would have been addressed. This diagram should represent the efforts of many and will be free of math errors. However, it appears that one has slipped through, and it’s a big one.
In the diagram there is a value for back radiation about equal to the incoming solar radiation. I had to go to NASA’s Earth Observatory to find a definition for back radiation. There it says that back radiation is the amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface and that it is equal to the incoming solar radiation.
It says that the back radiation is due to greenhouse gases, the most significant being carbon dioxide (CO2) according to most climate scientists. The table in the EEA the total for all greenhouse gases was 454 ppm. This equates to 0.0454 percent concentration. I will round this and use a concentration value of 0.05 percent
So, the claim here is that when about 340 watts per meter squared leaves the Earth and then is reradiated or reflected by the greenhouse gases back to the Earth. When this light leaves it rises up until it hits one of these gases and returns. These gases can only operate like this when light reaches it. That means that we have a concentration issue. The atmosphere above the Earth can only then return 0.05percent of the 340 that is moving through it.
Since the concentration of greenhouses gases is less than one hundred percent we can already see that the 100 percent of the 340 is wrong. When we do the math, we find that only 0.17 watts per square meter can possibly be reflected to the Earth from greenhouse gases. And this results only if no greenhouse gas molecules are in the way of other greenhouse gas molecules.
In order to get an idea of what the temperature that an object would have to be, if an object were giving us this infrared radiation, we can use the Stefan Boltzmann Law. I will find the temperature using the black body radiation formula. This calculates the greatest temperature value from the surface that the infrared is being radiated from.
Wm^(-2)=5.67(10^(-8) ) T^4
0.17=5.67(10^(-8) ) T^4
T=41.6K
T=-231.4℃
So, then what this means is that according to the Climate Scientists an object that is around 5.3℃ (340 Wm^(-2)) will be warmed by a nearby object that is -231.4 (0.17 Wm^(-2)). The Energy Budget Diagram that is put forward by NASA has a fatal flaw unless greenhouse gases are able to “re-emit” or “reflect” infrared light that does not strike a greenhouse gas molecule.
References:
NASA, April 10, 2017, What is Earth’s Energy Budget? Five Questions With a Guy Who Knows,
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/l
NASA Earth Observatory, Jan 14, 2009,
https://earthobservatory.nasa.
European Environment Agency (EEA), archived Dec 10, 2020, Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Concentrations,
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data
About the author: Chris Marcil is a multicraftsman and independent researcher.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Alan Bland
| #
The very concept of back radiation breaks the second law of thermodynamics. Also the transfer of heat from Earth’s surface by conduction and convection back into space results in the atmospheric lapse rate, which can be calculated from atmospheric density and depth, independent of composition. There is no back radiation.
Reply
David Stone CEng
| #
Agreed. It is incorrect, has always been incorrect, and yet these “scientists” either do not realise, in which case they are not scientists, or they no longer think in which case they are “zombie scientists”, who just take the money and shut up.
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
Can NASA be sued for false information??
If they are taken to court, do they not have to prove their GHE claim?
Reply
Chester Harvey
| #
Joe Postma covers this subject very thoroughly at his site and I enjoyed one of his recent videos on the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4CL2_A4-Xs
NASA is pushing “flat Earth physics” .
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Fellows,
I cannot understand how you and others can be critical of NASA and NOAA scientists when you consistently ignore the data of atmospheric soundings which shows that the temperature of the atmosphere is sometimes, to often, greater than the surface beneath it. I cannot understand how you and others can consistently ignore the phenomenon of radiation scattering by clouds and other condensed matter of the atmosphere which scatters the radiation being emitted by the surface back toward the surface.
Buy yourselves an inexpensive IR thermometer and point it upward every morning near sunrise and you will see how drastically the temperature of the ‘sky’ changes from morning to morning and how when the is a thick overcast that this sky temperature is nearly the same at the temperature being measured by your outside weather station.
You seem to claim to be scientists; so observe instead of reasoning. For one cannot reason about one does not know.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Ken Irwin
| #
Jerry, Stand in front of a large block of ice with your IR thermometer – in Kelvin it is relatively “hot” and radiating IR – but you are a bit hotter – sure at a quantum level radiation is going in all directions but the net effect is from hot to cold.
You can’t warm yourself in front of an ice block.
From the Flanders & Swann song of Thermodynamics
“You can’t move heat from a cooler to a hotter,
You can try it if you like but you’ll only look a fool…..
The lapse rate and Boyle’s law pretty much kibosh downwelling.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Ken,
Thank you for your comment for it helped to see something which I believe I have been overlooking as you and others repeat over and over that heat cannot flow from lower temperature matter to higher temperature matter. What I saw was that I, and you, cannot directly see heat, or even measure heat, without measuring temperature. We do not feel heat; we only ‘feel’ hotter or colder.
I have been listening to speakers at an energy symposium titled ‘Energy Transition and Decarbization’ and the title of the first keynote speaker was ‘The Urgency and Pitfalls of Scapping the Current Energy System for a Low-Carbon One.’
There was an opportunity to participate in a Q/A with a speaker which did not happen. But I did submit this question: Do you agree that the need to swap the CURRENT ENERGY SYSTEM for a LOW-CARBON ONE is based solely upon the greenhouse effect of the atmospheric carbon dioxide theory which predicts that atmospheric temperatures would be about 33C (58F) lower than currently measured if not for the atmospheric carbon dioxide and other similar gases?
I received a reply from the Professor who organized the symposium that this question would be put on a list without answering this simple yes or no question. Ir seems that this list could have been what to ignore.
Now a fact about the symposium was that the significant majority of the speakers were professors of engineering and not one was professor of either physics or chemistry.
However all the keynotespeakers were obvious authorities so I asked the question: Why did Galileo insist that his book ‘Two New Sciences’ be only published in the Italian language? Which question actually disappeared from any list of questions. So you have a possible answer to this question?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Moffin
| #
Hi Jerry. When I was involved in local body politics and even now to a lesser degree, I would grab the cage with two hands and shake it (challenge the paradigm within a group) and see what comes flying out.
I was invariably checking for incompetence or corruption when the obvious was being ignored. Games of power and control I qualify as corruption because “due process” is almost always corrupted by power and control manipulations.
I suggest you email your first question to 3 of the keynote speakers personally, if you can track their email address down. Any that reply then follow up with your second question. It is important to keep asking the first question until you get three independent replies.
If you receive three replies giving similar scientific understandings you then have an understanding of their foundational thinking as a group.
If they reply with a variety of concepts make them sit in the front of the class and write out 100 lines on “I must not……” (satire)
Anyway Jerry, I have an unfortunate gift which is scratching the surface and discovering corruption and/or ignoble motives.
Have a nice day. Moff.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Moffin,
I just asked Ken: Why did Galileo insist that his book ‘Two New Sciences’ be only published in the Italian language? I consider this question different from: “Do you agree that the need to swap the CURRENT ENERGY SYSTEM for a LOW-CARBON ONE is based solely upon the greenhouse effect of the atmospheric carbon dioxide theory which predicts that atmospheric temperatures would be about 33C (58F) lower than currently measured if not for the atmospheric carbon dioxide and other similar gases?”
Moffin, would you please answer these two questions.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Moffin
| #
Hi Jerry.
I did not realize you were returning to the symposium which makes my comment redundant.
I mentioned corruption. The issue is the effect water has in the atmosphere is conflated with CO2’s effect in the atmosphere.
Einstein said he worked on a problem longer. Unfortunately comments on this article should lead to resolution on this issue but the mass of new articles have buried this debate and commenters attention span has been dispersed.
Enjoy your Sunday. Moffin
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Ken,
I think air conditioners move heat from cold to hotter. Energy flows from high to low (always). By using energy you can move heat from cold to hot.
“Hot” and “cool” refer to kinetic energy and an object with less kinetic energy (cool) can indeed transfer energy to a hot (more kinetic energy), object if the smaller object has more energy (velocity).
When a small car traveling fast hits the rear (traveling in the same direction) of a large slow truck (more kinetic energy) what will happen? Conservation of momentum/energy where the car slows and the truck’s speed increases or conservation of kinetic energy where the truck slows (transferring energy to the car) and the car speeds up?
Herb
Reply
geran
| #
Herb, you’re still confused about molecular collisions. After the collision, the total kinetic energy of the two is the same. Energy is conserved. The transfer of energy would not increase temperature of the “system”.
Please don’t keep making the same mistakes.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Geran,
I’m not disputing the conservation of energy. What I’m saying is that after the collision the object with less initial kinetic energy (the car) loses kinetic energy (slows) and the object with more initial kinetic energy (the truck) gains kinetic energy (increase speed).
I believe the discussion is about whether an object with less kinetic energy (cooler) can add kinetic energy to an object with more kinetic energy (hotter).
geran
| #
If both molecules are already in the system, then the collision does not raise average kinetic energy. The average kinetic energy has not increased.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Geran,
If both molecules are being heated by different sources (uv vs visible light) then it will produce a difference. The uv heating the atmosphere is produced by solar flares. The light heating the Earth is produced by the sun’s surface.
In the coming grand solar minimum it will get cold because the atmosphere is not adding heat to the Earth.
Herb
Carl
| #
When you say that atmospheric soundings show that the temperature of the atmosphere is often greater than the surface beneath it, are you referring to temperature readings of the atmosphere taken at or below 1.5 meters above the ground or soundings from weather balloons that travel up into the Stratosphere? In other words, to what specific data set are you referring?
One would be relevant and the other not because the thermal interaction that takes place between to thermodynamic systems, 1) the ground and 2) the atmosphere, takes place at its boundary, i.e., where the two are in physical contact.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Carl,
Thank you for asking me to clarify which I had not accurately defined.
My ‘atmospheric sounding’ is the direct measurement of the atmosphere’s temperature by some standard electronic temperature measuring device being carried aloft by a ballon whose density is less than the surrounding air’s density. Hence the balloon is being lifted by the principle of buoyancy. The temperature beneath the balloon is the air temperature conventionally measured 1.5m above the earth’s surface.
You refer to other data sets for you know there is a NOAA dataset (whose link I do not have handy at this moment) which measures both the air temperature at 1.5m and that of the earth.surface as well as soil temperatures at 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100cm depths.
You have written that NOAA would not address the validity of the surface temperature but when I study all these temperatures and that which I measure with my IR thermometer (calibrated, verified by pointing it at a surface with partially melted frost) I am convinced that NOAA’s surface temperatures are within a degree F. Which, their measured maximum-minimum temperatures measured at 1.5m during the previous hour commonly indicate a difference of a degree or more has accorded during that previous hour. Which fact seems to make any temperature measurement to a tenth degree almost meaningless.
We haven’t really discussed that which we have been learning lately.so I welcome this opportunity you gave to me.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Carl
| #
For those who might read this but did not see our 2018 discussion on this topic, the question that we were debating is whether the surface of the ground is typically warmer than the air above the ground or whether the surface of the ground is typically cooler than the air above the ground. This evolved into a debate about the accuracy of IR thermometers. Here is why.
Over a number of months I measured the temperature of both the ground and the air above the ground every 20 minutes using data-loggers. For the ground temperature I used a thermocouple that was in direct contact with the ground and compared it to the temperature of the air 1.5 meters above the ground using a MicoDat data-logger, which also monitored the humidity.
My primary interest was in observing the effect that the “most potent greenhouse gas”—humidity—has on the temperature of both the ground and the air above the ground.
A secondary observation that I made was this. The temperature of the ground was virtually always higher than the temperature of the air and furthermore the rate at which the ground cooled at night was relative to the temperature differential between the ground and the air above the ground as per Newton’s Law of Cooling. What I observed is the air cooling first night after night after night followed the ground cooling at a rate relative to the temperature differential between the two. When the air stopped cooling so did the ground. Not an unexpected finding considering the second law of Thermodynamics.
These results are contradicted by a data set being gathered by a NOAA project called USCRN (which can be found by searching the Internet.) This data set showed that contrary to my findings the temperature of the surface of the ground was consistently cooler than the air above the ground, which would reverse the flow of heat. In their data set the ground cools first, which is followed by the air above the ground cooling. Whereas, my results show that the ground warms the air, the USCRN data suggests that the air warms the ground.
Upon further investigation I discovered that the USCRN data on ground temperatures is obtained using an IR thermometer and not a thermocouple that is in direct contact with the ground. This raised the question of the accuracy of the data set that was being generated by the IR thermometer that they were using—the AI-111 Apogee Standard Field of View Radiometer Sensor. Specifically, is it calibrated to the local ground emissivity of the various monitoring stations?
Why is this important? As everyone who studies radiation thermodynamics knows, with the radiation intensity constant the temperature of a surface and its emissivity are inversely proportional. That is, as the emissivity of a surface goes down the temperature of the surface must go up in order to maintain the same radiation intensity. Therefore an IR thermometer that is calibrated above the actual emissivity of the surface will produce a false low temperature reading–the actual temperature of the surface will be higher than the readout on the IR thermometer.
I therefore needed to know to what emissivity the AI-111 Apogee Standard Field of View Radiometer Sensor was calibrated, so I wrote the company and ask them. Technical Sales Support for Apogee wrote back and said that the IR thermometer in question is calibrated to an emissivity of 1.0 at the factory and (I quote) “if you wish to apply an emissivity setting correction, this must be applied after data collection by multiplying the sensor readings by your desired emissivity setting.” He then referred me to page 15-16 in the SI-111 manual that outlined a rather involved mathematical procedure that one has to use to figure out what the proper “emissivity setting” would be for each individual monitoring site. What complicates this is the fact that the actual emissivity of the ground varies from day to day depending upon local ground conditions, most significantly the moisture content of the soil.
I then wrote the project manager of NOAA’s USCRN project and ask him if they apply an “emissivity correction” to their ground surface temperature data set as suggested in the Operator’s Manual and he said they do not. (Maybe because “its good enough for government work”–my words not his.) I therefore concluded that their surface temperature data set is in error on the low side because the actual emissivity of most ground surfaces in the real world is < 1.0.
Now back to our current discussion. Contrary to my conclusion, you have concluded that NOAA’s USCRN ground surface data is actually correct because you yourself have verified the data. To verify that data set you used the following procedure:
“when I study all these temperatures and that which I measure with my IR thermometer (calibrated, verified by pointing it at a surface with partially melted frost) I am convinced that NOAA’s surface temperatures are within a degree F.”
Points to consider:
1) The procedure that you used to supposedly verify NOAA’s USCRN ground surface data differs significantly from the instructions found in Apogee’s SI-111 Operator’s Manual.
2) You are using one IR thermometer to supposedly verify the accuracy of another IR thermometer that is differently calibrated. Typical “off the shelf” IR thermometers are calibrated to an emissivity of 0.95, which would measure ~5 C higher than an IR thermometer that is calibrated to an emissivity of 1.0.
3) Ground emissivity is site specific, yet you assume that the ground emissivity where you are is identical to the ground emissivity of the data collection sites in question. It may very well be that the IR thermometer that you used on that particular day was correctly calibrated to the emissivity of this “surface with partially melted frost.” This is the classic logical fallacy known as the “Fallacy of Composition”, which assumes that what is true of the part is true of the whole. That is, since your one temperature measurement with whatever IR thermometer you were using that particular day was accurate, you assume that all IR thermometer readings taken everywhere must also be accurate, even if they are calibrated to an emissivity of 1.0.
4) In order to legitimately challenge the accuracy of someones scientific findings you have to repeat the actual experiment that they ran. In this case you could do an experiment that compares the air temperature 1.5 meters above the ground with the temperature of the ground using a thermocouple that is in direct contact with the ground at the same physical location.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Carl,
You are correct about the emissivity property of different surfaces. I have measured the IR temperatures of car glass windows and the car paint before sunrise when there is no noticeable dew or frost on either. The window temperature is less than that of the paint just below the window. Which temperature difference I do not consider to be significant when these temperatures can vary that much from time to time during an hour when the sky appears to be cloud ‘free’.
My interest now is trying to explain the rare freezing rain (mist) event which has brought down many trees in our neighborhood, city, and county.
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Carl,
Thank you for reviewing our issues. You certainly did a much better job than I could have. You demonstrated, for anyone who cares, how SCIENCE should be conducted by discussing the validity of one’s measurements and what these measurements might explain..
Here is a link (https://principia-scientific.com/the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory-part-two/). I do not know if you have read this essay. I do not know if you are aware of the RAWS (remote automated weather stations). Not all of the more than 1000 RAWS sites have the ‘Fuel Stick’ but many do.
I do not attempt to describe Figure B for a figure pictures the measurements of an instrument summarizes the numbers better than a table of numbers or words can do. as. Go this link and look at Figure B. The fuel temperature is measured with a conventional temperature device which is inside a wooden dowel as descrobed. It appears obvious (to me) that these two temperatures, measured with different instruments, track closely with each other and not closely with the air temperature as conventionally measured.
Thus, while I consider the information of Figure B validates the Surface Temperature measured with an IR thermometer; I consider it could have been demonstrated better by a figure in which the Atmosphere temperature, the Surface temperature, and the 5cm soil temperature were plotted. For it seems to not only to validate the measurement of the Surface temperature but to also demonstrate the simple mechanism of the earth’s Natural Radiation balance system and its thermal energy storage system.
I have recently joined the 80’s club which allows me to consider I am NATURALLY SLOW and FORGETFUL. So would you please put this figure together to send it with your comments (AGREEING OR DISAGREEING) to John O’ for a possible posting.
Have a good day, Jerry
Unfortunately, I cannot access my first essay concerning this NATURAL LABORATORY. Which began: “This essay compares incident solar radiation and the air, surface, and soil temperatures at 5 depths measured at the NOAA USCRN (U.S. Climate Reference Network) site at Corvallis OR sunrise October 17 to sunrise October 22, 2018 with the 2017 measurements of the same 5 days.?” In the first essay I had compared the soil temperature of 2018 with those of 2017. Some of these figures demonstrate how the solar energy absorbed by the Surface is conducted downward into the soil during the daytime where it is stored and then, in the afternoon this stored thermal energy begins to be conducted upward through the soil to the Surface where it is emitted to space by the surface according to its temperature..
Now, the 2017 figures show how variable the incident solar radiation can be and it should be obvious that the factor creating this variably must be clouds. And one can see (because of the maximum and minimum values measured the previous hour) that the Surface Temperature is much more variable than the soil temperature at 5cm. Which, I consider, forces one to conclude that the Surface is composed of very little matter (is very thin). But the ‘regular’ variations of the 2018 incident solar radiation allow one to clearly see the soil temperature (at 5cm) to regularly oscillate from being less than the Surface temperature until the Surface cools by emitting radiation more radiation than it is absorbing until the Surface temperature decreases to a temperature below that at the 5cm depth. For at his time the thermal energy stored during the daytime begins to be conducted to the Surface where it is being emitted toward space according to its temperature.
For the figure of the Surface temperature and the soil temperature at 5cm depth, shows the basic radiation balance mechanism without having to use words to describe (define) it.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Carl,
SCIENCE requires that there be a general discussion between at least two people during which some agreement is reached. Two heads a better than one. For shared experience might disclose something not being considered by the other. We all have different experiences and need to try to understand these different experiences.
I have stopped submitting my essays to John O’ for his consideration to post them. For those which reported the data being observed at the Finley National Wildlife Reserve were basically ignored (very limited comments about that which I had reviewed (shared So I concluded there was no one interested in actually measured data which must by the fundamental basis of any SCIENCE.
Except I knew you were, however you seem to have disappeared from PSI at that time. So welcome back and maybe we can resolve our differences and move a correct understanding forward as happened in the past when wrong SCIENTIFIC ideas were finally refuted to the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY’S satisfaction. But first TWO must agree.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
J Cuttance
| #
The concentration of absorbing material in the atmosphere can’t be directly applied to this thermal budget, absurd as it is. There’s 100km of air. If it were 0.1% coal dust then the sky would be black.
Reply
Max
| #
Jerry, if back radiation existed, you would observe it by feeling your head darn hot, like you do when the sun shines. After all, back radiation is supposed to provide the same heat as the sun does, if not more. The reality is that you won’t feel any heat. You won’t feel anything that may come close to the shining sun. Backradiation doesn’t exist, or if it exists, it isn’t heat.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Max,
Consider the ‘black box’ with its tiny hole through which any radiation must enter or leave. If we consider its interior comes to some constant temperature, do photons stop being emitted from its interior walls to other interior walls where they are absorbed? Do photons stop escaping through the tiny hole as others enter through the interior to maintain the interior temperature? Does the interior wall get warmer just because they are absorbing photons? No!! For one needs to remember the walls are also continually emitting photons so a therm equilibrium is maintained.
You know that the only way a surface can stop emitting photons is that its surface temperature must decrease to absolute zero Kelvin. That’s a Scientific Law.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Gerry instead of avoiding and side stepping Max’s point try addressing it head on. pun intended.
The reason the sun warms max’s head when he is directly under it is because the energy being absorbed by his head is a more intense energy than his heads resident energy.
And upon absorption work is being created, thus temperature increased.
That does not happen when he stands out under the so called back radiation from the atmosphere, why not Gerry if it cannot warm his head it cannot warm what is beneath his feet.
What ever you are measuring it is not acting as heat and therefor adding no temperature increase to his head or what is beneath his feet.
That is real world simple for even a ophist like you to grasp, now stop evading and answer him directly because no amount of politeness an hide your evasion..
Reply
geran
| #
Max, your thinking is correct, but your phraseology is confusing.
“Back radiation” does exist. Back radiation from the sky is the infrared that can be measured. But that infrared does not have the ability to raise surface temperatures. You can verify this with an inexpensive IR thermometer. Clear sky temperatures are always very cold, and typically much colder than the surface.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Hello Chris, have you read Christopher Monckton’s paper on this subject? He attributes error to the mathematical feedback mechanism used by the “climate scientists”. In order to get to the heart of the matter, Christopher does not argue any science that the “climate scientists” put forth – just their math. He is trying to get the paper published and it has been in China but he is trying to force the IPCC to acknowledge it.
Reply
geran
| #
Monckton is unable to understand the physics. He’s a “Lukewarmer”. People like him are one of the reasons this GHE pseudoscience has been around so long.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
I disagree – I think Monckton has a legitimate case and that is why the IPCC has not answered his mathematical questions. I have been on this subject or years and I have never seen a simple understandable explanation for the way CO2 supposedly blocks IR from returning to space but does not block a similar amount of IR from reaching earth….why CO2 is supposed to be some kind of one way valve. If Monckton is correct then CO2 is not a problem and case closed for man made CO2.
Reply
geran
| #
Monckton has a long history of believing in the IPCC/CO2/GHE pseudoscience. If he has now changed, that’s good. But, to be clean, he needs to admit he was wrong for years.
Reply
Bevan Dockery
| #
One of the most glaring errors, yet continually ignored, is the use of the Stefan-Bolzmann equation.
At the Equator, the Earth’s surface is moving beneath the Sun at a speed of 1674 km/hr so it cannot possibly meet the properties needed, namely, a perfectly flat, uniform surface in thermodynamic equilibrium.
Reply
Norman
| #
Chris Marcil
I am certain you do not have a correct view of how GHE works. Energy is added to the atmosphere via various mechanisms. 77.1 Watts/m^2 of solar energy is absorbed by the atmosphere. 358.2 Watts/m^2 are absorbed from the surface IR emission. 18.4 are absorbed from thermals generated at the surface and another 86.4 is moved into the atmosphere by evaporation. All this energy keeps the atmosphere at a state where it emits 239.9 to space and 340.3 back to the surface (the difference between the energy leaving and surface is because of lapse rate).
The air is kept at a certain temperature by the energy it gains from all the sources. The GHG’s (Carbon Dioxide, Water Vapor, etc) radiate energy based upon their temperature and emissivity).
You want real world measurements of this energy click on the link.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_6025f6776b6d1.png
That is a graph of all the measured radiant energy from Desert Rock Nevada in summer sun.
Just the Back radiation from the atmosphere;
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_6025f79d80146.png
The Energy budget was not just a random made up configuration. It was based upon measured values by ground sensors and satellite measurements. You should go to the CERES web site and make some graphs, you will see how they developed the budget. It does not have the math error you seem to think you have found.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Norman,
The kinetic energy (temperature) of molecules is determined by the energy received and the number of molecules to which that energy is distributed. When you talk of temperature of watts/m^2 you assume that each square meter has the same number of molecules. That may be approximately true for land and water but definitely untrue for the atmosphere.
The atmosphere at sea level has .001 the number of molecules as the water so the 77.1 watts/m^2 of energy being absorbed by the surface atmosphere will produce a kinetic energy/molecule 200 times the kinetic energy/molecule of water surface molecules absorbing 386 watts/m^2.
Since molecules radiate energy in all directions the greater energy of the atmospheric molecules will be adding energy to the surface molecules not absorbing more energy from them.The density of the atmosphere decreases with altitude so the kinetic energy/molecule increases with altitude (universal gas law).
Herb
Reply
Carl
| #
“All this energy keeps the atmosphere at a state where it emits 239.9 to space and 340.3 back to the surface”
Beyond whatever mathematical problems NASA’s Earth Energy Budget diagram might have, its most significant flaw is that is does not distinguish between “radiation intensity” and “heat flow” because both are quantified using the same units–watts/m^2. In your comment you dispense with the units altogether and just post the numbers.
The SURFRAD project measures “radiation intensity” and not “heat flow”. The graph to which you link shows a relatively constant level of Downwelling IR Radiation at ~375 – 390 watts/m^2 day after day, but the downward “heat flow” from the atmosphere to the ground is 0.0 watts/m^2 because on the same graph the Upwelling IR Radiation stays between ~500 – 600 watts/m^2 day after day. Therefore the SURFRAD chart also contains a graph of Infrared Net, which is the difference between the above to numbers, which is the “heat flow” via IR radiation. This is negative 24 hours a day and demonstrates that the “heat flow” via IR radiation from the ground is always upwards. Some of that “heat” is absorbed by the atmosphere, which helps warm the atmosphere, and some of that “heat” is transferred directly into outer space.
This is different for the 239.9 watts/m^2 that is being emitted into outer space from the Top of the Atmosphere because there is very little “back radiation” from space (some say that there is ~3 watts/m^2 of background cosmic radiation.) Thus at the Top of the Atmosphere the “radiation intensity” = “heat flow”. At the surface where there is counter IR radiation these are not equal.
Here is the formula for Net Radiation Heat Loss Rate:
“If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as–”
q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ah
where
Th = hot body absolute temperature (K)
Tc = cold surroundings absolute temperature (K)
Ah = area of the hot object (m2)
One does not feel one’s head being heated by radiation from the atmosphere unless the air is over 98.6 F, because otherwise one’s head will be emitting more IR radiation than the air and thus your head will be losing heat to the atmosphere. This sensation is called “cooling”.
If the ground had nerve endings it too would sense the air being “cool”.
Reply
Bevan Dockery
| #
Norman, perhaps you could qualify “I am certain….”. Your reliance of NOAA data may be misplaced. For example, the graph at:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_6025f6776b6d1.png
Here we see the Downwelling Solar rising and then falling during the daylight hours as expected. However the Downwelling Infrared barely changes. How can this be when 52% of the Sun’s radiation is in the infrared part of the spectrum?
The fact is that W/m^2 cannot be added and subtracted when the sources are all at different temperatures as they have different frequency spectra. For example a source at 310 deg K has a radiant exitance of 523.7 W/m^2 and a source at 273 deg K has a radiant of exitance of 315 W/m^2. Add the two together gives a sum of 838.7 W/m^2 which could be the radiant exitance for a sink at 348.7 deg K but this does not happen. The maximum temperature that can possibly be achieved from the two sources is 310 deg.K because the sources do not have sufficient energy at the highest end of the frequency spectrum to drive the temperature any higher.
Atmospheric CO2 only back-radiates less than 9% of the Earth’s surface radiation for a surface temperature of 15.5 deg C, in a few discrete absorption bands. This cannot cause warming of the Earth’s surface. Only heat from a source of temperature greater than the surface will cause the surface to increase in temperature.
There is no such thing as a Greenhouse Effect outside of a garden greenhouse where the higher temperature is due the blocking for the normal atmospheric convection currents.
Reply
Norman
| #
Bevan Dockery
Look at the second link in my post. it gives a more detailed version of the DWIR. It indeed changes from Day/Night cycle by about 50 W/m^2.
Also you are correct, the CO2 is not warming the surface. The incoming solar flux is what warms the surface. The GHG only reduce the rate the surface loses heat energy by a significant amount. Read Anders Rasmusson post for the general idea.
If you look at the Global Budget graphs the NET upwelling IR is around 58 watt/m^2 of loss. The GHE does not “warm” the surface but it does allow the incoming solar input to reach a higher sustained surface temperature. It is similar to insulation raising the temperature of a heated object. The insulation is not “warming” the heated object, the energy added to it is causing the warming. The insulation only allows the same amount of energy to force a higher temperature of the object by changing the amount of heat loss by the heated object.
Reply
Anders Rasmusson
| #
The absorbing/emitting components in the atmosphere act as a shield hindering the surface (land and oceans) from radiating with the full black body spectrum to the space. The hindered part of the spectra is radiated from the surface to the shield although being cold at higher altitude, a lot warmer than the space at -270 °C. Compensating for the temperature difference, shield vs space, the surface temperature has to be higher when shielded than when not shielded.
Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson
Reply
geran
| #
The net flow of thermal energy (infrared) is from surface to atmosphere to space. The atmosphere does not warm the surface. The temperature gradient (lapse rate) reveals that.
It’s the same as holding a long copper rod in a hot campfire. The end in the fire is very hot, but you can safely hold the other end with your bare hands. Your hands are not warming the fire.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi again Geran,
If the copper rod is the atmosphere then it is being heated by the uv and x-rays emitted by the sun (All objects absorb radiated energy and since O2 and N2 do not absorb visible light, infrared, or longer wavelengths, they must absorb shorter wavelengths.).not the cooler surface of the Earth.
Herb
Reply
geran
| #
Herb, if you can’t understand my simple example, then no further effort would help you.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
The “Energy Budget” diagram should be a sphere with the quantities shown on both sides of the sphere since the cooling and heating of the earth is going on simultaneously. The use of the flat diagram helps mislead….that CO2 seems to cause spooky action at a distance.
Reply
Barry
| #
Seems that the numbers for the sun are a little out as there is 1370 watts at the top of the atmosphere and about 960 that get to earth,even if divide that by two to do the hemisphere in the sun you would get 480?
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
That’s not how it works. While the concentration is low, there are so many layers.
+_________
+________
+_______
___+______
____+_____
_____+____
______+
_______+__
________+_
_________+
Looking up, it appears a small number of +’s take up 100% of the view.
Reply